Viable Systems Modelling II

An updated version of the VSM report is presented below. The main changes are that, firstly, it is now in Word format and thus easier to access for people without a PDF reader, and it also expands on the benefits of VSM modelling in the conclusions section.

Viable Systems Modelling

As noted in earlier postings about management modelling methods, a combination of approaches can produce added value. Enterprise Architecture is excellent for visually presenting business processes, applications and technical infrastructures. However, Viable Systems Modelling brings in the additional dimensions of Requisite Variety and Recursion.
The paper below summarises how VSM recognises the need for independently viable management sub-systems that provide local communications and control capacity that balances the variable complexity across the organisation. The manager needs to be able to effectively communicate with the managed and the managed need to be confident that the manager knows how things work in practice.

VSM model student information systems from Tony Toole

Smudie Project Case Study

As noted in previous postings, the main deliverables planned for the Smudie project are this project blog and a detailed case study describing the project outcomes. The project blog is intended to provide a narrative account of the project activities, as well as provide access to all the project documents and outputs. The case study is a structured synthesis of the project achievements, outcomes and lessons learned. Both will be completed as the end of the project period approaches in 2013. However, a first draft of the case study has been created and is a useful reminder of the actions to be taken in the final phase of the project. The draft is shown below:

Smudie case study from Tony Toole

The case study is in the format set out on the programme website and this will be the formal project deliverable. However, a second version of the case study/report will be created for institutional management that summarises the 'nuggets' of effective practice identified by the project.

The 'to be' Modelling Plan

The document below outlines the 'to be' modelling plan for the Smudie project. As indicated in previous blog posts, it will be more generic than initially planned to account for the uncertainties surrounding the systems likely to be adopted by the newly merged institution. In that regard it is hoped it will be more transferrable to other institutions addressing similar issues.

Planning the smudie 'to be' model from Tony Toole

Project Deliverables: Planning the Case Study

The deliverables for the Smudie project were planned to be a detailed case study describing the project outcomes, together with this project blog which comments on the issues and actions leading to the delivery of those outcomes.
Tony Toole met with Dave White, the JISC project Critical Friend, in Oxford yesterday and part of the (wide-ranging and very helpful) discussion covered the potential content and structure of the case study.
The discussion to some extent was a mini brainstorming session and really represented the start of the case study planning process. It took into account the institutional changes taking place through the merger between Swansea Met and Trinity St David and the uncertainties about the future information systems plans resulting from this. As noted in previous posts in this blog, it has already been decided that the original plan for specific systems recommendations would now be inappropriate and that more generic proposals would be more useful. In fact, the outcomes of the Smudie project may actually have greater impact now as they will directly inform an ongoing change process.
The issue that was discussed at the meeting was the possible structure and content of the case study. The general conclusion was that key operational areas/functional components of the information management system could be targetted. The idea of identifying micro case study 'nuggets' was explored where key areas for improvement, identified by the 'as is' evaluation, would be developed. The key areas would be identified as being typical (and thus generic) for any institution and the solution adaptable as a result.
The additional benefit to the generic approach would be that the outcome would not only be of use to the newly emerging instiution as it develops its merged system solutions, it would also be of greater benefit to the wider JISC community as a transferrable project deliverable.

The discussion also concluded that a 'nugget' based case study would be more effective for consideration by senior management than any detailed inclusion of the modelling methods used to arrive at the proposed solutions. It was felt, however, that the modelling process, particularly the multi-model approach that combines the benefits of EA, VSM and SSM, would be of interest to that specialist area of action research. It was agreed that the dissemination of that outcome would be a useful additional project deliverable.

The Practicalities of Management Modelling

EA modelling of management processes[1]  has a similar overall purpose to other modelling systems such as Checkland's Soft Systems Modelling[2] and Beer's Viable Systems Model[3],[4]. They use their own (typically) visual languages to map and describe management systems and processes with the common purpose of aiding conversations about improvement and optimisation.

A brief comparison of the similarities and differences between these three Human Activity modelling systems is worthwhile as it sets the context for the use of Enterprise Architecture in this particular exercise and indicates how EA modelling can be enriched by drawing in features from the SSM and VSM approaches.

The fundamental commonality is the recognition that they are all attempting to model human activity systems and that they will be fuzzy descriptors as a result. There is no attempt by any to eliminate the human variability factor, only to accommodate it and to exploit its strengths.

What SSM and VSM both bring to EA is what Checkland calls the world view and Beer calls the environment. It is easy with EA to concentrate just on the enterprise and its systems and miss the impact of the outside world when planning.

A further feature that VSM brings to the consideration of management systems is their recursive nature: smaller systems exist within larger systems, but each has the same control and communications profile. All institutions are agglomerations of self managing units within units.

It is also important to recognise that the fact that de-facto self managing systems will emerge to fill gaps in the management infrastructure that institutional senior management are likely to have no knowledge of. The current student attendance monitoring processes at the University provide several examples of such invisible localised management arrangements.

---

[1] http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/ea/index_html

[2] Checkland, Peter B. & Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action: A short definitive account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, teachers and Students, Wiley, Chichester.

[3] 1972, Stafford Beer, Brain of the Firm; Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, Herder and Herder, USA.

[4] 1989, Ed. Espejo and Harnden The Viable System Model; John Wiley, London and New York.

Revised Project Schedule

With the changed status of Swansea Metropolitan University, the final stages of the JISC Smudie project have been re-scheduled to reflect the new institutional management arrangements and focus. The new merged university will be undertaking major structural changes that will not be complete by the time the Smudie project ends in July 2013. For this reason, the original plan to implement changes in the information management system based on the evaluation findings are no longer realistic. It is therefore proposed that the project outcomes, particularly the planned 'To Be' model, be structured as an advisory input to the discussions about the new institutional information management system. The expectation is that the final report and recommendations be of significant value in that process, and that the outcomes will be of equal value to other institutions in the JISC community planning similar developments. The revised schedule is shown below.

Development of the 'To Be' Model

This week has seen the beginning of a new era for Swansea Metropolitan University as it formally merged with University of Wales Trinity St David. To some extent the JISC Smudie project has been in preparation for this event and will contribute to management information systems planning for the new institution. The next phase of the project will use the conclusions drawn from the 'As Is' phase to develop a 'To Be' model that will seek to implement potential improvements in the new operating environment. The model will be based on information management components and on information management scheduling:

This will lead to the revision of information management workflows designed to deliver efficiencies and improved stakeholder support. In particular it is expected to make recommendations with regard to a single student record system and an institutionally managed student attendance monitoring and reporting system.

Third Evaluation Report: The Academic Viewpoint

The focus of this evaluation exercise was primarily on student information management by Academic Staff at the University. Three members of staff from each of the four Faculties were interviewed and the sample included Programme Directors, Year Tutors and Module Tutors. Further interviews were also carried out with IS staff, ADQs and Faculty Secretaries, as well as with staff in the Finance Department and the Students Union. Although additional interviews are planned with a selection of students during the Autumn term, and repeat interviews with selected staff to confirm some of the findings, this report largely completes the 'as is' evaluation phase of the project. The key message that emerged was that the academic engagement with the institutional student records system was periodic and mainly related to the reporting of assessment outcomes and attendance monitoring. It identified fact that day-to-day local records were kept by individual tutors and course teams and that these were used for formal reporting at appropriate points in the year. The important message for information management planning was that local record keeping processes were largely below the institutional management radar and that, although invariably aimed at providing optimal student support, varied considerably across the institution as a result. The next phase in the Smudie project will be starting to build a 'to be' model for student information management that takes all the evaluation messages into account. The intention is that it will be strategic in approach and technology independent; specifying the management principles that would ensure consistency and accuracy of information gathering and reporting.

Attendance Monitoring Report for Senior Management

The attendance monitoring, actioning and reporting mini-project within Smudie was completed and the outcomes discussed with the Vice Chancellor. This led to a request to present the findings to the University Senior Management team for discussion and decisions regarding future planning and actions. The presentation prepared for that purpose is shown below:

Smdd presentation from Tony Toole

Information Management Review Meeting

A review of the information management system was held at the university on 13 July with a view to (1) updating all key stakeholders on developments and (2) planning for the next phase of development. Dave Smith, systems programmer, summarised all the developments and upgrades to the student records system and Chris Godsmark, MIS manager, reported on the external facing information communications, particularly the HESA returns. Tony Toole provided an update on the progress of the Smudie project and reported that the extensive stakeholder consultation phase of the project had been completed. He was in the process of documenting the outcomes and this would include a full 'as is' Enterprise Architecture model of the student information management system. Other diagramming outcomes of the process included a revised systems schematic which illustrated the range of external systems links (left hand side) and the internal information streams (right hand side).

Student and Institutional Information Management Systems

Below the top-level recording processes are the actions that the records trigger. These in themselves add to the information in the student records system and contribute metadata.

 

The map above shows the monitoring of both student academic attainment and attendance. The key feature of both is the combined outcome of Remedial Action. Discussions with all academic staff as part of the Smudie project had one very consistent feature: that all staff were focussed on student success and the support of them in their journey towards it.
Drilling down further takes the process towards the initiation of more formal University procedures:

Here the student record system is providing information that leads to follow-on action that both provides additional support for the students and provides essential data for the institutional management information system. It emphasises that the student information management system is only a sub-set (albeit a central one) to the overall institutional system.

An Enterprise Architecture Model of Attendance Monitoring

Enterprise Architecture modelling is being used by the JISC Smudie project to create process maps of student information management systems at SMU. These maps enable the system stakeholders to engage in informed conversations about the effectiveness of existing systems and to plan for improvements.
Often these maps present a picture of flexible and adaptable systems that recognise the different needs and contexts of the curriculum areas. This is no more apparent than in the top level systems map that emerged for student attendance monitoring.



It's a straightforward process involving the recording and reporting on students' engagement with their learning. However, this occurs in different ways ranging from formally and consistently timetabled lectures and practical classes to variable and negotiable sessions involving a high degree of student choice.
The University presently allows the curriculum areas to devise and manage their own attendance monitoring arrangements. The variation is illustrated in the systems map where the square white boxes are OR functions indicating choice. It can be seen that either the students or the tutor complete registers, that these registers are predominantly paper based (but not always), that the tutor transcribes these onto a spreadsheet (but not always) and that these are on common folders on the intranet (but not always).
The question that emerges from the analysis is whether the University is optimally served by this flexibility and can adequately meet its external reporting requirements. It is exactly this kind of question that the EA modelling is designed to invite.

Attendance monitoring spawns a mini-project

The previous post on attendance monitoring emphasised the need for a more consistent and time efficient way of gathering accurate data at the University. A technology based solution using student proximity cards has been trialled this term and the outcomes are to be discussed at a meeting on Friday.
However, it is not just data gathering that is a problem, it is also in the way that information is interpreted and made available to the various outside agencies who use it. The four main agencies are the Higher Education Funding Council, the Student Loan Company, HESA and the UK Border Agency.
The University is anxious to ensure the completeness and accuracy of student attendance data and the way it is interpreted and presented so that it can be confident that it is in compliance with legal and financial requirements. It is also keen that information in the public domain presents an appropriate picture of institutional performance.
For this reason, a mini-project has been launched to re-visit the information requirements of the agencies, not the least because they change their reporting requirements and arrangements from time to time, and to make appropriate changes to the University reporting procedures to achieve these outcomes.

Student Attendance Monitoring

There are two basic stakeholder viewpoints regarding student attendance monitoring at scheduled teaching sessions in modern Higher Education. These are that:

1. Modern HE students are mature and capable of making their own decisions about how to engage with their learning and their learning resources. The degree of flexibility and choice has been advanced considerably by the continued developments in institutional and personal technologies, and the primacy of the face-to-face taught session has been reduced as a result. The responsibilities that come with choice are seen to develop important personal core skills for the student. The consequence is that, from a learning point of view, the monitoring of student progress against learning goals has become more important than the monitoring of attendance at scheduled classes;
2. There is a requirement for HE institutions to monitor and report on student attendance to funding bodies and, for overseas students, to the UK Border Agency. Attendance monitoring is also a valuable component of the student support system that triggers action when lack of attendance indicates a problem. Attendance monitoring, particularly relating to whether a student has withdrawn from the course, is important as the information is used by the SLC to trigger the release of student loans and student fees. The consequence is that, from a management point of view,  there is a requirement for institutions to report on the attendance status of students and this is currently achieved by monitoring attendance at scheduled classes.

It is clear that student attendance monitoring for legal and financial accountability purposes is essential. However, the changes in teaching and learning practice, driven by the continuing emergence of new supportive technologies, are making face-to-face attendance monitoring increasingly inappropriate as the sole measure of learning engagement.
In practice, of course, individual tutors are monitoring their cohorts and are taking appropriate local action. Good practice in this regard needs to be systematised and included as a component of the monitoring and reporting process.

Second Phase of Stakeholder Interviews

The second phase of stakeholder interviews is well under way, having begun at the beginning of April. This phase is concentrating on the student information management responsibilities of academic staff and the use of the student information management system by the students themselves.

A minimum of twelve members of staff will be interviewed, three from each of the four Faculties, and currently this is 50% complete (the Easter break causing a bit of a delay this month). Already, however, some interesting new messages are emerging.

The first of these is about the more diverse information management tools used by academic staff compared with registry and management staff. Quite understandably, the academic staff are using the institutional VLE, Moodle, to communicate with students and to guide their academic progress. The Agresso system is used to report on their achievements, but is not used to support academic delivery. This emphasises the fact that the system is an institutional management tool, not an academic delivery support tool.

A second message is that staff engage with the information management process in different ways and with different degrees of commitment. It is self evident that the effectiveness of any information management system is entirely dependent on the quality of the information it receives. There are three different staff attitudes emerging that impact on the quality of information input to the system:

1. Staff that recognise that student information management is an essential component of the student support system, as well as being required for effective institutional management;
2. Staff who regard student information management as an administrative task that should not be the responsibility of academics whose primary role is to teach;
3. Staff who largely comply with the student information management requirements but have no confidence in the value it delivers.

These are important messages that need to be considered along with the system usability improvements already reported. It is clear that the recommendations from this project will not only relate to informations systems design, but also to professional development activity that ensures consistency of information management across the institution.

Steering Group Minutes and revised GANTT Chart

The minutes for the 3rd Smudie project Steering Group are shown below and include a revised project plan GANTT Chart

Steering Group Meeting 3 & Phase 3 Planning

The third Smudie project steering group meeting will be held tomorrow (30th March 2012) and will consider the outcomes of the stakeholder interviews carried out in phase 2. The messages were summarised in the previous blog post and it is proposed that, based on the conclusions drawn, the project plan be modified to include a third phase of interviews to complete the picture.
The phase 1 interviews were designed to provide an overview of the student information management system at SMU and to identify the issues that needed to be addressed. The phase 2 interviews were with the stakeholders that had direct management input to the information management process and provided a rich picture of the way the system operated. The proposed third phase will now explore the input from the stakeholders who enter the primary data into the system: the academic staff and the students.
In addition to this final phase of stakeholder evaluation, there will also be a structured exploration of the QLS V4 application to map the way the software operates in practice to the messages received from the stakeholders. The purpose of this exercise is to ensure that (1) the messages regarding usability are accurate and (2) the recommendations for improvement are based on a whole system view and not on a partial picture of the functionality.

Phase 2 Project Report

The second phase of the Smudie project is now complete and the outcomes are summarised in the report to be presented to the next steering group meeting on Friday. The report covers the findings from a series of interviews with key users of the Swansea Metropolitan University student information management system.
The first group of stakeholders were the Faculty Management Information Officers (MIOs).
The role of the MIO is to oversee the completion and accuracy of student records managed by the Faculties. They are central to the adoption of QLS V4 by the Faculties and the direct entry of student assessment information by academic staff. In principle they have no direct input of primary information, but check that the students are registered on the correct modules and that assessment outcomes are entered and up to date. Having said that, where changes in marks, module transfers and student withdrawals are to be made, only the MIOs are authorised to make those changes.
The second group of stakeholders were the Faculty Assistant Deans (Quality) (ADQs).
The ADQs are responsible for all aspects of academic quality management in the Faculties. This includes arrangements for new course proposals and validations, exam arrangements, exam boards, external examiners and the management of all associated information. It also includes responsibility for managing relationships with external agencies including QAA, Estyn, HEFCW and the University of Wales. The ADQs chair their Faculty Academic Quality and Standards Committee, attend the other FAQSCs, and report to the main AQSC.
The third group of stakeholders were the Information Systems staff at the University.
Each member of the IS staff has a particular role in the development and maintenance of the student information management system. The roles are based on experience, technical expertise and institutional need in terms of, for example, database support, systems development, user support etc. This is not at all unusual in organisations, but there is a risk of critical capacity loss if individuals are the sole repository of expertise in a particular systems function. This is no doubt being managed through appropriate duplication/documentation and, where appropriate,
succession planning. The IS team works directly with academic, registry and other staff with responsibility for using the student information management systems. This ranges from basic systems training and user support for activities such as student enrolment; through to workbench development to improve the user interfaces with the QLS application. There are
several areas where further improvements in usability, efficiency and effectiveness of the systems have been identified. All of these are known by the IS team and the staff are working towards solutions within the constraints of team capacity.

Discussions with the wider JISC community

It was always expected that the problem space being addressed by the Smudie project would represent an area for improvement by other institutions and that they could benefit from the project outcomes. Similarly, it was expected that those other institutions would be finding solutions that SMU could benefit from. For this reason, the project will aim to be in regular dialogue with those institutions.
Tony Toole acts as Critical Friend to four different universities participating in the JISC Curriculum Design programme and meets with them regularly. The same information management issues are being addressed by these institutions as they explore transformational change in the curriculum.
This week saw the latest in a series of CAMEL meetings, organised by Tony, where all the institutions come together to share common issues in curriculum innovation and the technical systems that support curriculum design and delivery. Approaches to student information management was on the agenda and it was clear that there were remarkable similarities in the thinking being applied and the support systems being developed. This included the use of Enterprise Architecture as a business and technical modelling tool, and it was agreed that the sharing of experience across that community of practice was highly desirable.
An expectation is that the SMU project team will establish collaborative arrangements with those other development groups for mutual benefit.

Steering Group Meeting and Progress Report

The second project steering group meeting was held on the 23rd January and a progress report covering the first two months of activity was presented. The key conclusion drawn from the first round of stakeholder interviews was that the fundemental structures, technical support systems and strategy for student infomation management at SMU were sound.
The objective of a totally integrated system was on the agenda of the IS team and was being progressively addressed by members of that team in collaboration with the managers of the student information in Registry, the Faculties and elsewhere. This was a welcome message at this early stage: that the overall objective of integration was recognised and its implementation would bring valuable benefits to all of the stakeholders.
That is not to say there are no problems to be overcome or barriers to implementation. The initial survey identified a number of areas of significant inefficiency and inconsistency with regard to data entry, data processing and data access. It is expected that further areas for improvement will be added to that list as the survey continues in the next phase.
It also revealed the limited capacity for development that the very effective, but relatively small, IT support team could provide.
The survey outcomes are being used to create a model of the student information management system using Enterprise Architecture; currently at the business layer level only, but soon at the application and technical layers as well to represent the whole process and its components. The JISC-CETIS Archi tool is being used here and can be reported as being very effective indeed.

Project Report 1

The second steering group meeting for the Smudie project is scheduled for the 23rd January 2012 and the first project activity report will be discussed at that time. It covers the period 22nd November 2011 (when the project started) to January 22nd 2012. Although this period included the Christmas and New Year holidays, good progress has been made in the main objectives for the start of the project: setting up the project team and blog reporting; conducting the first round of stakeholder interviews; mapping student information management processes using the Archi EA application; and investigating related JISC resources.

Interviews have been carried out with key staff in SMU Registry, the Faculties and with senior management. These were primarily intended for basic information gathering and scoping of the project, with the intention of follow-up discussions as the 'rich picture' of student information management at SMU developed.